Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

eu.usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 234 posts

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#91

Post by slantyyz »

cloudfifty wrote: post #87
slantyyz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> .. Players move between clubs all the time in football. > That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least Can you explain how ownership of a player's rights works in European football? As a non-football fan from North America, I have always found it confusing when I hear about the huge fees it costs move a player, before his salary is even discussed, as I'm more familiar w…

The normal scenario is that a club signs a player up for X years. If another club fancy that player during the length of the contract period they negotiate with both the club and player to break that contract for a fee. If the contract expires, the player is free to sign for any club. Clubs usually make sure to not have important players on a soon-to-expire-contract, and if they do, they rather sell that player than…

Thanks, that's much clearer than the explanations I've seen before.

So it's basically the price to void the existing contract instead of moving the player with his contract.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#92

Post by pkd »

slantyyz wrote: post #76
cloudfifty wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather, the players move up or down between minor and major league teams. Uhm, so what? Players move between clubs all the time in football. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least

> .. Players move between clubs all the time in football. > That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least Can you explain how ownership of a player's rights works in European football? As a non-football fan from North America, I have always found it confusing when I hear about the huge fees it costs move a player, before his salary is even discussed, as I'm more familiar w…

Yes loans exist. Teams generally loan players who they have on contract but don't see them making the first team to other teams to either foster their development or save money on their wages.

The team getting the player on loan generally takes on the player's wages and in some cases also pays a small loan fee to the loaner club.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#93

Post by Cymrukicks »

slantyyz wrote: post #76
cloudfifty wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather, the players move up or down between minor and major league teams. Uhm, so what? Players move between clubs all the time in football. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least

> .. Players move between clubs all the time in football. > That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least Can you explain how ownership of a player's rights works in European football? As a non-football fan from North America, I have always found it confusing when I hear about the huge fees it costs move a player, before his salary is even discussed, as I'm more familiar w…

Basically you are buying a player registration with Fifa, so if a team wants a player they have to purchase the registration with the relevant authorities. Loaning players is just an agreement between the clubs and the central authorities that the registration will be loaned for an agreed amount of time. This can come with clauses that a player must play a certain amount of games, can't play against a parent club etc and the loaner must pay a fee or contribution to wages.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#95

Post by JohnBooty »

enaaem wrote: post #89
JohnBooty wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the "American system", in most major sports, individual players (and coaches, effectively) are relegated and promoted between the big league and smaller developmental leagues all the time. I don't love the American system but a failure to ensure that our top talent plays in the top leagues is not one of its deficiencies. In terms of meritocracy, I'd say it works at least as well as the European system. As an Ameri…

It's not an illusion. It has happened. Leicester played in the third division in 2008-2009 and won the Premier League 7 years later. Leipzig used to only play in a regional division 10 years ago and are now in the top of the Bundes Liga and reached the semi-finals of the champions league. Although rare and improbable it does keep a dream alive for many fans. And dreams are part of the entertainment. It can also go th…

I love those stories and agree they are fun, but aren't they also very money-oriented most of the time?

I know for example Cardiff City's renaissance and brief promotion to the Premier League corresponded with an influx of foreign cash. That's undeniably massive fun for supporters of Cardiff, but decidedly un-fun for teams that did not receive such an infusion of money, and in the end it doesn't make me too jealous of the pyramid model.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#96

Post by slantyyz »

Cymrukicks wrote: post #93
slantyyz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> .. Players move between clubs all the time in football. > That doesn't make any sense whatsoever to an avid, European, football fan like me at least Can you explain how ownership of a player's rights works in European football? As a non-football fan from North America, I have always found it confusing when I hear about the huge fees it costs move a player, before his salary is even discussed, as I'm more familiar w…

Basically you are buying a player registration with Fifa, so if a team wants a player they have to purchase the registration with the relevant authorities. Loaning players is just an agreement between the clubs and the central authorities that the registration will be loaned for an agreed amount of time. This can come with clauses that a player must play a certain amount of games, can't play against a parent club etc…

Ok this FIFA part makes sense, because I always wondered why there were fees that had to be paid for foreign players.

IIRC, when an NHL player under contract decides to play in Russia for a season, I don't think I ever hear of compensation being paid to the NHL team in return.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#97

Post by nmfisher »

rvieira wrote: post #3
anthk wrote: post #2

IDK about the rest of Europe but in Spain soccer is highly tied to local cities/towns and lesser cathegory leagues, as if the big soccer teams were built up from the smallest grounds. Trying to convert that into a "Hollywood" soccer kind with "fireworks", elitism and expensive/luxury consumerdom/PPV like is the recipe for a disaster and to dis-joint the huge regional fandom of each team. On major events such as final…

I think it's pretty much the same throughout Europe. A massive component of football's success is the illusion that "anyone can make it" and win everything, being just 11 vs. 11. I say illusion, because it's true in theory, but in reality small budget teams can't really hold on to great players.

I hate the influence of money on sports (EPL in particular), but I mean, relative minnows Leicester City did win the League a few years back. It's not impossible.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#98

Post by Mordisquitos »

rizz0 wrote: post #37
Joe8Bit wrote: post #17

Lots of people have talked eloquantly about the monetary greed the Super League entailed, but I think it misses the wider point, Kronke (et al) have long been pushing for a _redistribution of power_ in football, away from the 'leagues' (e.g. the Premier League, La Liga, UEFA) to the clubs and owners themselves. Which is the now the canonical model for US sports, where they're most comfortable. Another example of this…

Club != Owners. The club is the people, the owners own the shares of the company. Your comment frames the situation as a "League Owner" vs "Club Owner" power struggle. That struggle is real, but it ignores the critical aspect that makes European football appealing: European football is about the clubs, the communities they represent, and cultural rivalry between communities. In essence Man City is Man City because th…

> In essence Man City is Man City because they are not Bolton

I fully agree with the spirit of your comment but, to be fair, Manchester United is in Trafford, which is as much "Manchester" as Bolton is...

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#99

Post by jonwinstanley »

wwtrv wrote: post #75
mrob wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The promotion and relegation system goes all the way down to amateur level. This chart is outdated but captures the complexity: http://thepyramid.info/asp/pyramid3.asp A big part of the appeal of local football is the knowledge that your team could theoretically get promoted all the way to the top. A closed league goes against this sense of fairness.

But the only way that could realistically happen is if a large corporation or a wealthy individual bought the local club and replaced all of it’s players with significantly more expensive ones and I don’t see what’s particularly appealing about that. The closed American leagues are actually much fairer at least to the teams that are in them, TV money is split more evenly, there are caps on how much money can be spent…

I kind of agree, but as all clubs have some sort of wealthy owner it becomes more about how well you use your money rather than how much you have.

There are plenty of examples of rich clubs performing badly and less rich clubs punching above their weight.

Re: US owners find greed doesn't play well in European soccer

#100

Post by cloudfifty »

slantyyz wrote: post #91
cloudfifty wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The normal scenario is that a club signs a player up for X years. If another club fancy that player during the length of the contract period they negotiate with both the club and player to break that contract for a fee. If the contract expires, the player is free to sign for any club. Clubs usually make sure to not have important players on a soon-to-expire-contract, and if they do, they rather sell that player than…

Thanks, that's much clearer than the explanations I've seen before. So it's basically the price to void the existing contract instead of moving the player with his contract.

Exactly.
Post reply on HN